Vehicle/Air balance - a different approach. - Page 3

gunshooter · 2013-01-08, 06:19 AM

If your solution isn't "actually fix the gameplay balance" but instead "try to get people to not do the grossly imbalanced thing" then it's probably not a good solution.

Your proposals wouldn't do anything to fix the actual core of the problem, this suggestion is effectively just a low-effort bandaid fix.

Kerrec · 2013-01-08, 07:51 AM

A lot of good ideas. Triangles seen from aircraft would be OK to me IF and only if, the aircraft itself can't do the spotting. If a ground troop spots something, then the aircraft should be able to see that triangle.

However, unless NV/Thermal gets ajusted as well, there's no point. IMO, in conjunction with the above adjustment, have NV/Thermal NOT show friendly or enemy identifiers. That way, the air vehicle will at the very least have to flick NV/Thermal on and off to verify friend/foe before lobbing rockets. At least it's a little bit more time consumption and complexity...but seems more like a bandaid fix than a true fix.

What I would suggest is:

Go back to true Rock-Paper-Scissors design. And I don't mean Aircraft>Vehicles>Infantry>Aircraft. What I would like to see is every asset be able to choose what to specialize against. The more you specialize, the weaker you become vs. something else.

The Lightning is a good (and bad) example. When a Lightning goes Skyguard, it effectively becomes useless versus Vehicles and Infantry. That's the "good" part of the example. The bad part is the Skyguard is not effective versus Aircraft either. This whole mentality of Aircraft kill everything, but everything "deter" aircraft needs to die. It all has to be equal.

If a MAX/HA decide to go focus on Aircraft, they should expect to KILL them, but be vulnerable to Vehicles. If vehicles focus on Infantry, then they should not be able to affect Aircraft, or other vehicles to any effective degree.

And of course, there should always be the option to be viable against everything, but much weaker in offensive power.

Dodgy Commando · 2013-01-08, 08:04 AM

I agree that tweaking IFF might at least give air/armour a harder time against infantry requiring them to get closer, thus giving infantry more of a chance to take them out.

But how do you implement/balance such a change?

A few ideas:

1. Simply removing it on the grounds that vehicle sensors are designed to detect bigger target signatures than infantry; requiring them to purchase Infrared or a new cert tree that allows them to detect infantry easily, but at the cost of a different utility cert tree.

2. Give infantry a new cert tree based on stealth, evading different forms of detection (e.g NV, IR, Q spotting). Again, at the cost of foregoing the choice of a different cert tree. You could maintain a hard-lock default distance where you can reliably Q spot any target, regardless of whether it is certed into stealth (e.g actually spotting within visual range).

3. I quite like the idea of a new facility type that provides friendly territory-wide detection benefits.
Or maybe two types of small outposts that only amplify/dampen the territory immediately around them in terms of detection capabilities. These could counter-act each other during the fight for the local major facility, providing new objectives. Having both is great, but if the enemy has one, you can try and counter them by controlling the other type.

___

I also believe base layouts need to be reviewed. Why not add an entirely new layer to bases (e.g inside or underground), completely innaccessible to vehicles. The final capture of a base would have to take place inside this layer, providing intense infantry fighting. It would not have to be a feature of every base. I do foresee one issue with this idea: increased load to system resources, etc... due to the addition of complex and more detailed shapes.

I don't believe nerfing/cutting out certain weapon types altogether to be a good idea, however.

FreeSpeech · 2013-01-10, 06:36 PM

There is only one approach - NERF VS ships!!

maradine · 2013-01-10, 06:44 PM

Originally Posted by FreeSpeech

There is only one approach - NERF VS ships!!

Very helpful - thank you for that.

FreeSpeech · 2013-01-10, 06:50 PM

You're welcome!

- Let's face it though, everyone who has played the game knows the sheer power of the Scythe and Magrider vs all other comparable vehicles, it barely requires any explanation!

maradine · 2013-01-10, 07:34 PM

No true Scotsman, eh?

Rothnang · 2013-01-10, 07:55 PM

Scythes have by far the worst rocket pods in the game because of the double fire thing they do.

People who still think Magriders are overpowered just haven't wrapped their head around the advantages of a turret yet. I would love if I could spawn Vanguards on my Vanu character.

FreeSpeech · 2013-01-11, 07:51 AM

Turrets? Oh you mean those things that can be shot to pieces from 100 miles across the map by a strafling Magrider on a hilltop that takes over 6 accurate shots to kill? Yes turrets are well useful! The ability to strafe in a tank is something people seem to take so lightly!

Vanguards are ok, but extremely slow and cumbersome, meaning they can get shot to pieces by most aircraft relatively easily. I at least don't mind the VG, but would much rather have a Magrider.

The double fire thing isn't a big deal. If anything it helps them to aim and you only have to land 1-2 shots on infantry to wipe them out.

Baneblade · 2013-01-11, 09:47 AM

The only time air seems to even give a fuck Im around is when Im in a vehicle or when Im shooting missiles at them on foot. Any other time they just ignore me.

So maybe I don't see the problem with how it is.

typhaon · 2013-01-11, 10:30 AM

Let's stop pretending this is such a difficult problem.

Make air units - specifically the Liberator - more killable from the ground and the problem becomes much less of an issue, immediately.

Let's not kid ourselves... the Lib is a 2-man, death dealing, over-armored, AOE platform - that with upgrades just about flies like an ESF. There were phases of beta where this was not an issue.

PS2 works fine with "UP" air units... it's not fun for many with "OP" air units.

DaPope · 2013-01-11, 10:41 AM

I like the idea of vehicles can only spot other vehicles, however they should still be able to see infantry if infantry spots them. It only makes sense, if your team is coordinating there is no reason that a ground troop can not "call in an air strike" and provide solid data.

It's stated before, but right now unless the draw distance is changed there is still a huge advantage to infantry. ESFs can get locked on and shot from the ground without ever being able to shoot back. Although personally I think this mechanic isn't all bad. If air wants to focus on infantry they have to get down very close which makes them vulnerable to all kinds of enemy weapons, mountains, and obstacles that can quickly end your flight.

Something that I think people forget is that when an infantry unit dies they come back in a few seconds. When air goes down it is several minutes before they can return to the fight. So while the air can make a big impact in a few seconds once it is down the infantry can quickly and easily have an even bigger impact on the fight.

I'd also like to point out the resource argument. If you look at Esamir for VS and TR we only have 10 resources initially (Warp Gate). Realistically even with aggressive capturing the most VS or TR can expect to have is about 35 per 5 minutes. If a Scythe costs 200 to pull and is show down in seconds here is what it would cost (in time) to replace it:

200 / 35 = 5.7 (round up to 6), resources reset every 5 minutes, so 6x5 = 30. So it would take the average player 30 minutes to be able to recover the resources that Scythe cost. Liberators are even worse at closer to 45 minutes.

Just something to think about.

Thunderhawk · 2013-01-11, 10:57 AM

Originally Posted by DaPope

I like the idea of vehicles can only spot other vehicles, however they should still be able to see infantry if infantry spots them. It only makes sense, if your team is coordinating there is no reason that a ground troop can not "call in an air strike" and provide solid data.

It's stated before, but right now unless the draw distance is changed there is still a huge advantage to infantry. ESFs can get locked on and shot from the ground without ever being able to shoot back. Although personally I think this mechanic isn't all bad. If air wants to focus on infantry they have to get down very close which makes them vulnerable to all kinds of enemy weapons, mountains, and obstacles that can quickly end your flight.

Something that I think people forget is that when an infantry unit dies they come back in a few seconds. When air goes down it is several minutes before they can return to the fight. So while the air can make a big impact in a few seconds once it is down the infantry can quickly and easily have an even bigger impact on the fight.

I'd also like to point out the resource argument. If you look at Esamir for VS and TR we only have 10 resources initially (Warp Gate). Realistically even with aggressive capturing the most VS or TR can expect to have is about 35 per 5 minutes. If a Scythe costs 200 to pull and is show down in seconds here is what it would cost (in time) to replace it:

200 / 35 = 5.7 (round up to 6), resources reset every 5 minutes, so 6x5 = 30. So it would take the average player 30 minutes to be able to recover the resources that Scythe cost. Liberators are even worse at closer to 45 minutes.

Just something to think about.

Sorry, you are using sound logic to disprove the majority asking for an air Nerf, this cannot be allowed to continue !!!

(I agree with everything you said btw)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Baneblade · 2013-01-11, 11:42 AM

The only time air seems to even give a fuck Im around is when Im in a vehicle or when Im shooting missiles at them on foot. Any other time they just ignore me.

So maybe I don't see the problem with how it is.